AIM: We developed and evaluated a simulator for the sonography of the abdomen in order to improve the teaching quality in sonography training. METHOD: Eleven medicine residents who had received 4 to 12 months full time sonography training performed ultrasound examinations of the right upper quadrant in 5 consecutive patients and in 5 simulator cases. The correctness of their findings and the time required for the examinations were measured. The subjective confidence in their findings and the handling of the ultrasound machines were rated on a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: During patient ultrasound examination 75 % (SEM 9%) of all pathologic findings were recognized by the residents, whereas 71 % (SEM 8%) of the pathologies of the simulator cases were found. This minimal difference was not significant in the paired, two sided t-test (p = 0.15). Severe pathologies did not escape detection. The time required for patient examination(10.57 min, SEM 3.25 min) was not significantly different (p = 0.53) to the time required for the simulator cases (9.59 min, SEM 2.98 min). The subjective confidence in the sonographic findings did not differ significantly (p = 0.39) between the real patient situation (68%, SEM 6%) and the simulation (64%, SEM 12 %). Only the handling of the ultrasound machines was judged to be significantly better (p=0.008) than the simulator (74%,SEM 7% vs. 61 %, SEM 12%). CONCLUSION: In this first direct crossover comparison between real patient sonography and simulator based scanning we proved that the simulator we developed simulates the real patient examination reliably and reproducibly.
AIM: We developed and evaluated a simulator for the sonography of the abdomen in order to improve the teaching quality in sonography training. METHOD: Eleven medicine residents who had received 4 to 12 months full time sonography training performed ultrasound examinations of the right upper quadrant in 5 consecutive patients and in 5 simulator cases. The correctness of their findings and the time required for the examinations were measured. The subjective confidence in their findings and the handling of the ultrasound machines were rated on a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: During patient ultrasound examination 75 % (SEM 9%) of all pathologic findings were recognized by the residents, whereas 71 % (SEM 8%) of the pathologies of the simulator cases were found. This minimal difference was not significant in the paired, two sided t-test (p = 0.15). Severe pathologies did not escape detection. The time required for patient examination(10.57 min, SEM 3.25 min) was not significantly different (p = 0.53) to the time required for the simulator cases (9.59 min, SEM 2.98 min). The subjective confidence in the sonographic findings did not differ significantly (p = 0.39) between the real patient situation (68%, SEM 6%) and the simulation (64%, SEM 12 %). Only the handling of the ultrasound machines was judged to be significantly better (p=0.008) than the simulator (74%,SEM 7% vs. 61 %, SEM 12%). CONCLUSION: In this first direct crossover comparison between real patient sonography and simulator based scanning we proved that the simulator we developed simulates the real patient examination reliably and reproducibly.
Authors: Joel Cho; Trevor P Jensen; Kreegan Reierson; Benji K Mathews; Anjali Bhagra; Ricardo Franco-Sadud; Loretta Grikis; Michael Mader; Ria Dancel; Brian P Lucas; Nilam J Soni Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 2.960